Procedural Infirmities
Procedural Infirmities
Procedural Infirmities
In setting aside the aforementioned technicalities, infirmities, and thereby giving due
course to tardy appeals and defective petitions, it must be emphasized that the Court is
mindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules. In
this case where technicalities were dispensed with, the Court's decisions were not
meant to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by the law.
On the contrary, in those rare instances, there always existed a clear need to prevent
the commission of a grave injustice as in this case. Our judicial system and the
courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement
of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for
the just and proper disposition of his cause.
It is worth emphasizing that the rule which states that the mistakes of counsel bind
the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in
outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interests of
justice so require. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against
substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend
to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its
judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure.
JOEL F. LATOGAN, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, January 22, 2020, G.R. No.
238298
The counsel's mere failure to observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the protection
of the interests of the petitioner as the client, as manifested in the multiple procedural
infirmities and shortcomings herein, is gross negligence. If the incompetence of
counsel was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in
court, the latter must be given another chance to present his case.
The Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a
strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or
property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the
case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.
Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it
is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a
particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate
rather than promote the ends of justice.
Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it
is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a
particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to
frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.